Gambling Review White Paper update

[BFDon]

The only people who have a right to know about my financial affairs are HMRC.

Whatever money I have, I should be free to spend it in whatever way I wish.

Do the Tories not advocate that the individual knows best when it comes to spending? Apparently not!

If I choose to spend £20k on a car, does the dealer have to prove I can afford to spend £20k on a car? Of course not.

They're trying to brainwash us into thinking some form of checks are okay - no checks are okay!

Is this going to stop the 3 people in 1,000 who have a gambling problem? No! They will find a way to blow their money. All they need to do is spend an hour in each of the bookies shops in the town centre filling up the Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.

No one wants to see anyone harmed from gambling but education is the way forward - not infringing on the civil liberties of the majority.

The vast majority of problem gamblers will be addicted to the online casinos . This is where the attention should be primarily focussed.

Nobody is asking about your financial affairs unless you want to use their service. You give up your name and address when you sign up to these sites and provide documents for KYC checks before you're allowed to bet, does that bother you? Do you approve of these measures or do you think fraudsters should be able to money launder through these sites without identity checks?

Checks are a fact of life. Making an offer on a house....need to show estate agents you can afford it. Buying a house even in cash...need to prove where money has come from for conveyancing. Renting....need to send numerous id, statements, proof of income.

Don't disagree with the 2nd part of your post

[firlandsfarm]

The solution is blindingly obvious - make the gambling companies entirely responsible for any harm they cause,

I agree with your intentions but where does that responsibility stop? Alcohol? Smoking? Excessive foods? Even vehicles! What about a company that produces a car that is unfit for the abilities and mindset of the driver? The list would never end and snowflakes would see the precedent as an early Christmas.

[sionascaig]

The solution is blindingly obvious - make the gambling companies entirely responsible for any harm they cause,

I agree with your intentions but where does that responsibility stop? Alcohol? Smoking? Excessive foods? Even vehicles! What about a company that produces a car that is unfit for the abilities and mindset of the driver? The list would never end and snowflakes would see the precedent as an early Christmas.

ooocha - can barely remember writing that - maybe a good example of being able to solve all the worlds problems after too much wine.

[WisdomOfCrowds]

The only people who have a right to know about my financial affairs are HMRC.

Whatever money I have, I should be free to spend it in whatever way I wish.

Do the Tories not advocate that the individual knows best when it comes to spending? Apparently not!

If I choose to spend £20k on a car, does the dealer have to prove I can afford to spend £20k on a car? Of course not.

They're trying to brainwash us into thinking some form of checks are okay - no checks are okay!

Is this going to stop the 3 people in 1,000 who have a gambling problem? No! They will find a way to blow their money. All they need to do is spend an hour in each of the bookies shops in the town centre filling up the Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.

No one wants to see anyone harmed from gambling but education is the way forward - not infringing on the civil liberties of the majority.

The vast majority of problem gamblers will be addicted to the online casinos . This is where the attention should be primarily focussed.

Nobody is asking about your financial affairs unless you want to use their service. You give up your name and address when you sign up to these sites and provide documents for KYC checks before you're allowed to bet, does that bother you? Do you approve of these measures or do you think fraudsters should be able to money launder through these sites without identity checks?

Checks are a fact of life. Making an offer on a house....need to show estate agents you can afford it. Buying a house even in cash...need to prove where money has come from for conveyancing. Renting....need to send numerous id, statements, proof of income.

Don't disagree with the 2nd part of your post

I agree that money laundering is a concern. The banking industry is there to monitor this. They know what goes in and out of a person's account and should question irregularities.

If I'm renting a property, for example, the landlord needs to be able to check I'm of good character, I accept that.

Where I draw the line is the government interfering in my day-to-day spending.

Scales introduced at Tesco checkout: Excuse me sir but you look a little overweight, put that chocolate bar back.

Off licence to have single customer view: You have purchased 5 bottles of wine this week. I need to see your pay slip before you can have bottle 6. You'll need a liver check next week, by the way.

By all means do whatever checks you want on someone who is borrowing money - but no one should tell anyone how they should spend their own legitimate money.

Some people may prefer to spend £2k a year on holidays, other may prefer to spend £2k a year on betting. No one is going to stop the person from going on holiday.

Educate people to become personally responsible - that's the answer.

For example: after 10 minutes on a FOBT, a notice should come up on the screen to say that if you continue to bet at these levels you are likely to lose £x in the next hour. Make the user accepts this before continuing.

[Michael5482]

Consider Lucy Fraser came out yesterday stating it's not the Government's job to tell people how to spend their hard earned money there doing a pretty good job of it.

It's scary how incompetent MP's are in the fields within Government there appointed to. Good little interview on C4 with someone form The institute of Economic Affairs who understands the broader issue and Carolyn Harris who well doesn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8nQ65-LlP4

[firlandsfarm]

It's scary how incompetent MP's are in the fields within Government there appointed to.

Agreed Michael, "Jack of all trades and Master of none" springs to mind. And it will get worse as the proportion of 'career' MP's grows. What makes them think they can run a country.

[Atho55]

A good example....

Angela Raynor.png

[Derek27]

When the SAS storm a building they go for the terrorists and free the hostages but the GC would just drop a bomb and blow up the entire flipping building!

[WisdomOfCrowds]

Consider Lucy Fraser came out yesterday stating it's not the Government's job to tell people how to spend their hard earned money there doing a pretty good job of it.

It's scary how incompetent MP's are in the fields within Government there appointed to. Good little interview on C4 with someone form The institute of Economic Affairs who understands the broader issue and Carolyn Harris who well doesn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8nQ65-LlP4

Good interview giving opposing views of the discussion. Thanks for sharing.

I wonder what evidence the government has to suggest their proposals will reduce problem gambling? When Lucy Fraser was asked for details in parliament last Thursday, she avoided the question.

[Naffman]

One thing going under the radar is the turnover levy, if that goes through then UK racing will be a no go just like NSW is for traders.

I can imagine it now, Will Rogers Downs matched £500k

[Derek27]

One thing going under the radar is the turnover levy, if that goes through then UK racing will be a no go just like NSW is for traders.

I can imagine it now, Will Rogers Downs matched £500k

From what I remember, when Victor Chandler and other bookies were threatening to go overseas and take their business with them the government at the time remained stubborn and refused to budge on the 10% until they realised they were gonna lose more than they gained from the tax they were getting. I'd guess the same thing would happen again. Betfair would collapse with a turnover charge.

[Naffman]

One thing going under the radar is the turnover levy, if that goes through then UK racing will be a no go just like NSW is for traders.

I can imagine it now, Will Rogers Downs matched £500k

From what I remember, when Victor Chandler and other bookies were threatening to go overseas and take their business with them the government at the time remained stubborn and refused to budge on the 10% until they realised they were gonna lose more than they gained from the tax they were getting. I'd guess the same thing would happen again. Betfair would collapse with a turnover charge.

I wouldn't say the Exchange would die but people would either have to trade on something else or adapt to a betting model.

Anyway I don't think the regulations come into affect till the middle of next year so we should be able to prepare for what's to come.

[Derek27]

One thing going under the radar is the turnover levy, if that goes through then UK racing will be a no go just like NSW is for traders.

I can imagine it now, Will Rogers Downs matched £500k

From what I remember, when Victor Chandler and other bookies were threatening to go overseas and take their business with them the government at the time remained stubborn and refused to budge on the 10% until they realised they were gonna lose more than they gained from the tax they were getting. I'd guess the same thing would happen again. Betfair would collapse with a turnover charge.

I wouldn't say the Exchange would die but people would either have to trade on something else or adapt to a betting model.

Anyway I don't think the regulations come into affect till the middle of next year so we should be able to prepare for what's to come.

Yeah, I suppose it's just UK sport you'd have to stop trading.

It's quite ironic that Sunak wants to improve the nation's maths - he needs to start with his own government ministers!

[MaxLiability]

Doesn't matter whether we agree with it or not, you've got to be pragmatic about the problem. The majority of these checks you'll never even know they've been done.

If you get burgled while you're out, it doesn't matter, you'll never know it's happening.

Pretty sure you'd find out once you got home, with a credit check you'd never even know about it unless you'd failed it. And if you'd been pragmatic and bought house insurance you'd get new replacements for all the junk you had stolen too.

[Derek27]

Doesn't matter whether we agree with it or not, you've got to be pragmatic about the problem. The majority of these checks you'll never even know they've been done.

If you get burgled while you're out, it doesn't matter, you'll never know it's happening.

Pretty sure you'd find out once you got home, with a credit check you'd never even know about it unless you'd failed it. And if you'd been pragmatic and bought house insurance you'd get new replacements for all the junk you had stolen too.

You can't replace you're stolen dog or gifts left to you by your grandparents. But perhaps a better example would be: imagine somebody hacked into your email and was quietly reading all your personal and private emails for the last two years. You wouldn't know about it but you'd be furious if you found out!